Science is a wonderful tool for understanding how our world really works. But if the science supporting a given understanding is flawed, or worse, if it is slanted in favor of a politically-favored outcome, it can become the justification for excessively wasteful activities. When science crosses that line, it is transformed from something that is worthy of respect into junk science.

This is the story of Michelle Obama and her fight against the food deserts of America. The story begins on 24 February 2010, when the First Lady of the United States of America used her White House platform to introduce the little-understood concept of the newly-discovered "food deserts" of America to Americans as part of a media blitz:

As part of Lets Move!, the campaign to end childhood obesity, First Lady Michelle Obama is taking on food deserts. These are nutritional wastelands that exist across America in both urban and rural communities where parents and children simply do not have access to a supermarket. Some 23.5 million Americans  including 6.5 million children  currently live in food deserts. Watch the video below and learn what the First Lady is doing to help families in these areas across the country.

Food deserts sound horrible. Isn't it good that the First Lady is doing something about this awful problem that would appear to be plaguing America's most poor, yet obese citizens, who suffer because they are deprived from having large supermarkets stocked with nutritious foods within walking distance of where they live?

Or is the First Lady relying upon junk science to justify the wasteful expenditure of taxpayer money to benefit her and the President's political cronies? After all, there was already plenty of evidence back in 2010 that indicated that food deserts were more a junk science-fueled political talking point than a real factor that significantly contributed to making poor Americans obese, as the original 2006 study proclaiming the crisis in President Obama's home base of Chicago was funded by LaSalle Bank of Chicago, then the largest business lender in the city, who would directly profit from investments to "remedy" the situation.

Fortunately, respectable science can help provide the answers to these questions. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control very recently published a peer-reviewed scientific study of the impact that a lack of nearby access to nutritious foods, such as might be found in one of the First Lady's food deserts, actually has upon the Body Mass Index (BMI) of the Americans who live within such regions. Here are the results and conclusion for their study of 97,678 adults in the state of California (home to 1 out of every 8 Americans):

Results

Food outlets within walking distance (=1.0 mile) were not strongly associated with dietary intake, BMI, or probabilities of a BMI of 25.0 or more or a BMI of 30.0 or more. We found significant associations between fast-food outlets and dietary intake and between supermarkets and BMI and probabilities of a BMI of 25.0 or more and a BMI of 30.0 or more for food environments beyond walking distance (>1.0 mile).

Conclusion

We found no strong evidence that food outlets near homes are associated with dietary intake or BMI. We replicated some associations reported previously but only for areas that are larger than what typically is considered a neighborhood. A likely reason for the null finding is that shopping patterns are weakly related, if at all, to neighborhoods in the United States because of access to motorized transportation.

If you look at the statistical tables, theyre pretty striking. Even where there is statistical significance  which is the exception to the rule  the size of the effect is so tiny, its like practically nothing. For example, on the margin, adding one full-service supermarket within a one-mile radius of your house is associated with an average BMI decrease in your neighborhood of .115. That is a difference of just one pound. (see back-of-the-envelope calculations here)

So there is really no relationship, according to this one recent study of nearly 100,000 Californians, between the distance between your body and a full-service supermarket (or any other kind of food store), and whether or not you are obese. Distance, which is a proxy for access (the idea of a food desert is that the nearest supermarket, which has fresh produce, is distant), is for all practical purposes a non-factor.

We created the following tool so you can see what Michelle Obama's publicity campaign to direct large and/or politically well-connected retailers to spend millions of dollars to open or expand stores in the "disadvantaged" regions identified by the U.S. government as supposed food deserts would have in terms of your own weight. And the cool part is that the math is such that we can figure out just how much that would be for you from just your height!

Your Height

Input Data

Values

Your Height [inches]

Your "Food Desert" Weight

Calculated Results

Values

Amount in Weight [pounds]

If you're accessing this tool on a site that republishes our RSS news feed, please click here to access the original, functioning version of this tool!

Our tool indicates how much of your weight would be affected by whether you lived within a food desert. If you live in an area identified by the U.S. government as a food desert, it indicates how much more you would weigh, and if you were to move out of that area, it is how much you would lose. To put your result into proper context, the weight of an adult American normally fluctuates by up to 5 pounds during the course of a single day.

Did we mention large and/or politically well-connected retailers are involved? That's actually how we know that the whole food desert publicity campaign is really about crony capitalism more than it is about dealing with the health problems of obesity. Because in truth, if it were a real problem that could be fixed by opening new store locations, it would be a lot easier, cheaper and faster for small "Mom and Pop"-style grocery businesses to fit themselves into the already existing and available retail spaces within such deprived communities as the supposed food deserts of America.

But since the whole food desert concept would seem to be based on junk science rather than the more respectable kind, it is perhaps too much to ask for the solutions advanced by the politicians taking charge of the crisis to solve a legitimate problem.

If you’re in an area which cannot adequately sustain life (ie.: yours), MOVE.
Yes, it may be hard (much less so than whiners contend), but the alternative is prolonged suffering and death. Demanding others bring you good food is insane: they’re not for a reason, take the hint already and MOVE.

6
posted on 05/02/2013 6:58:46 AM PDT
by ctdonath2
(Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.)

To have this very noticeably overweight woman tell any of us that our kids or we are overweight is a damned insult. You'd think that one of her 42 personal daily attendants would stand her up in front of a mirror . . . just once . . .

It absolutely offends me that this tub of lard would dare to criticize other people.

The USDA had for awhile an inter-active map that showed where the “food deserts” were. I lived in one yet there was a grocery store less than a mile away. They are basing their claims that an area is a food desert on household incomes rather than access to food so they can divvy up the loot to the poor. It’s just another commie wealth transfer.

I go to Aldi’s occasionally. At least with my local store, you can do very well there, but can’t plan a weekly grocery trip around them because you never know what you’re going to get. Merch is different every time.

I’ve recently been self-diagnosed with a serious metabolic disorder that has put me on a severely restricted diet - I can only eat food.

And I’ve been surprised at how much junk in the local grocery stores isn’t actually food. The shelves are full of edible food-like substances.

But I live in the inner city, and even in the gritty neighborhood grocery store I can find fresh meat, dairy, eggs, produce, and whole grains. That most of what most people eat is processed crap isn’t because whole foods aren’t available. It’s because eating crap is cheap and convenient.

If you’re eating whole foods, you have three choices. Either you pay a lot more, or you work a lot more, or you plan a lot more.

Me, I plan. Half-an-hour’s work, and 10 hours of waiting on my six-quart slow-cooker, and I have a dozen individual serving freezer containers of pot roast.

But that works for me because 1, my schedule is stable, and 2, I have freezer space. It’s hard to prepare meals a week in advance, when you don’t know whose couch you’re going to be sleeping on, tomorrow.

Many of these places are “deserts” because they ARE deserts! Few people live there! On some it is very rural areas and people have been traveling long distances for groceries for the last 100 years or longer.

In other cases a “food desert” may be right next to a county that has plenty of food.
Example: Southern Deleware County OK is a “food desert”. Yet is is right next to Benton County AR which has large numbers of grocery stores right next to the State line.

Union County NM is a desert. Few people live there and Clayton, does have a large grocery store. Many people there choose to shop at Dalhart, TX. The panhandle of Oklahoma is the same way. Dry, High Plains with few people living there.

San Juan County NM. The West side is a food desert because it is Navajo Reservation! Yet Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield NM have large numbers of grocery stores.

Yup. If the major health problem in the area is obesity, the area is not a food desert. If calorie acquisition is not a problem but nutrition is, the infrastructure is in place but the demand - to wit CHOICE - is a self-imposed problem.

23
posted on 05/02/2013 10:05:37 AM PDT
by ctdonath2
(Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.)

You cannot study any number of things utilizing the scientific method. The fall of Rome is not reproducible or measurable or predictable. It happened once due to various causes that cannot be reinancted holding everything else constant while changing one variable. There is no control group.

27
posted on 05/02/2013 8:44:11 PM PDT
by allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)

Sure you could, If, as you mentioned, you had a control group or enough data to compare. I am speaking in general, conceptual terms. "The Fall of Rome"...ok, whats your hypothesis? "Did Rome Fall" ? Yes. next question. Like I said, garbage in, garbage out. Its a poorly worded topic. Would you have to be more specific? Of course. However, you can easily study the causes of decline in civilizations using any number of criteria and a control groups. Examples that have been studied comparing greeks and romans to modern day civilizations: Rates of disease and methods of sewage treatment; any number of medical treatments, global warming ( barf), immigration patterns, etc, ad nauseum. Additionally, in an ad hoc study, all events are predictable. And lets be honest...if you didnt think you could identify indicators that an empire would fall (unpopular leadership,unchecked immigration, over regulation, disproportionate tax rates) you probably wouldnt be posting on FR. My point is, in theory, any topic that can be studied can be studied using the scientific method provided the search area is large enough or the time frame is large enough to provide appropriate data.

28
posted on 05/02/2013 9:16:36 PM PDT
by The_Sword_of_Groo
(My world view is accurately expressed in the lyrics of " The Fightin' Side of Me")

The Fall of Rome is not reproducible or conducive to controlled experiments; where with ONE Rome you hold everything constant - and with a DIFFERENT Rome you change one variable.

You can study literature as rigorously as you wish - it will not be science. Science is not just rigor. It is a method for gaining reliable information utilizing experimentation and observation to develop useful and predictive models about the natural world.

29
posted on 05/03/2013 8:10:03 AM PDT
by allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)

Nobody is saying literature is science. I'm simply saying that you can apply the scientific method of study to any set of quality data. Again, "literature" is way too broad a topic. Either Davinci or newton( I forget which, but I know it was one of Dan Brown's heroes) studied and wrote on the differing influence of Catholicism based on geography. back to the Rome example, we don't know tht the "fall" of Rome is a one-off event. Much depends on how you define "fall". Economically, militarily, etc. Those things can certainly be studied via scientific method. Again, the history book definition of the fall of Rome is way too broad. There is no hypothesis. You'd have to study the subsets of data and their contribution to the whole

30
posted on 05/03/2013 9:29:36 AM PDT
by The_Sword_of_Groo
(My world view is accurately expressed in the lyrics of " The Fightin' Side of Me")

History is not science either. Science can be useful to history - in dating things, in analysis of pottery shards, etc. But science is a specific thing, not applicable to NUMEROUS questions, fields of study, etc.

I can understand why things would WANT to be science, to don the mantle of respectability that science has earned - but quite simply no matter how rigorously they study a nonscientific subject - it will not be science.

“Groo never retreats! But he does run away. RUN AWAY!!!”

31
posted on 05/03/2013 10:01:31 AM PDT
by allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)

I agree with you...I an not saying that hx is science. I'm also not saying that I agree with much of the so-called science thats out there. we all know that enough grant money will pretty much guarantee whatever outcome you'd like. (See: Climate Change). I'm just saying that, in theory, you can apply the methodology to ( just about) any field of study. You simply have to lower the bar enough to find comparators, either by expanding the search area, timeline, or both. Obviously, the lower bar opens the door to challenge the P values.

I think I should clarify something, because it seem like this is where we are diverging.... Simply studying something using scientific method does not make it a science. I simply mean that the methodology can be utilized in other fields.

"Taste the sword of Groo! One taste per customer!"

32
posted on 05/03/2013 12:27:42 PM PDT
by The_Sword_of_Groo
(My world view is accurately expressed in the lyrics of " The Fightin' Side of Me")

Obesity is caused by consuming a bunch more calories than you burn, the nutritional value of the food is not very important in that sense. Tell little Timmy to skip the second helping of dinner and ride his bike for half an hour instead of playing X-box and he won’t be so fat.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.